Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Forrest

Superior Court of Delaware

August 2, 2017

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff,
v.
WILMA FORREST AND DERWIN FORREST, Defendants.

          Submitted: July 19, 2017

         Upon Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment: GRANTED.

          Wilma Forrest, Derwin Forrest, pro se, Defendants.

          Melanie J. Thompson, Esquire, Atlantic Law Group, LLC, Attorney for Plaintiff Federal National, Mortgage Association.

          ORDER

          FERRIS W. WHARTON, J.

         This 2nd day of August 2017, upon consideration of Federal National Mortgage Association's ("Plaintiff) Motion for Summary Judgment, Wilma and Derwin Forrest's ("Defendants") Answer to the Complaint and Settlement Proposal, argument on June 27, 2017, and Plaintiffs Supplement to the Motion for Summary Judgment, it appears to the Court that:

         1. On October 22, 2017, Defendants executed and delivered a mortgage securing a promissory note to American Mortgage Network, Inc. for real property located in Wilmington, Delaware. American Mortgage Network, Inc., for valuable consideration, duly assigned its entire interest in the mortgage to JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association, which in turn assigned its entire interest to Plaintiff.

         2. Defendants defaulted on the loan by failing to pay the monthly installments of the mortgage. The mortgage permits Plaintiff to accelerate the sum secured by the mortgage and foreclose on the property for the collection of the owed debt. Defendants were given proper notice and the opportunity to cure the default, but Defendants failed to do so.

         3. On December 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a scire facias sur mortgage action against Defendants.

         4. On January 8, 2016, Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendants asserted Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the lawsuit because Plaintiff was not in possession of the promissory note. Defendants therefore argued the claims against them must be dismissed.

         5. Mandatory mediation was scheduled for February 17, 2016. Plaintiffs counsel appeared at the mediation conference, but Defendants did not.

         6. On March 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion"). Plaintiff argues that, "[u]nder Delaware law, the mortgagee's right to foreclose emanates from the mortgage, not the Note."[1] Accordingly, Plaintiff argues "[t]he status of the Note is irrelevant, " and Defendants have failed to plead one of the limited allowable defenses to a scire facias sur mortgage action.[2] Also, Plaintiff argues Defendants have failed to raise any genuine issues of material fact.[3]

         7. On April 17, 2017, Defendants submitted a Settlement Proposal, without any substantive response to Plaintiffs Motion.

         8. The Court scheduled oral argument for June 27, 2017. Plaintiffs counsel appeared before the Court, but Defendants did not. The Court ordered Plaintiffs counsel to file a supplement to the Motion to include the promissory note in light of the Delaware ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.